Debate Sharpens Over Single-Payer Health Care, But What Is It Exactly?


#1

Ok, so the question for single payer supporters is: If we cannot afford medicare for seniors, what makes anyone think we can afford medicare for everyone?

npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/22/463976098/debate-sharpens-over-single-payer-health-care-but-what-is-it-exactly


#2

Obviously, it would be funded by a new tax, or succession of taxes.

But at the same time, it would replace the need for insurance, so theoretically it would balance out.

While Americans seem to hate the idea because it is noncapitalist, many in countries that have it (.ca, .au, .uk etc) seem to be quite satisfied and thankful that they won’t go into poverty over an illness, as happens often in countries without it.

ICXC NIKA


#3

And of course those who can afford it come here for needed medical attention not available where they are.


#4

Actually, many of them of do not, especially when they need specialized care. People from those countries have spent thousands of dollars to come to the USA despite the fact that their countries have “free” health care.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and the catch with universal or single payer health care is that the government rations the cost, and in some countries, they forgo safety standards to compensate for the cost.


#5

And why would it not be available there if it’s “free”?


#6

Americans face the same issue when their insurer backs out of the specialized treatment needed.

ICXC NIKA


#7

Ultimately, that is a private contract. The government getting involved and acting like an insurance company will make things much worse.

What government needs to do is stay out of the way for the most part and the let insurance companies compete in the free market as well as allow charities to help people. :thumbsup:


#8

The problem is that we are at the robber-baron stage of human-health economics; medicine was never the huge part of the economy that it is now until a few decades ago.


#9

The advantages are huge.

An employee wants to start a business, but can’t risk his family losing health insurance if he leaves his job. So he remains.

Or, and employee wants to change companies for better opportunity, but has a child with special needs and he might not get insured with a pre-existing condition.
,
These road blocks are removed with a single payer system.

It also allows business owners to get out of the insurance business where they have to balance their budgets based on healthcare cost and insurance experts he needs in the HR department.

Yes, there will be a medicare tax, but it will be far less than the heath insurance premiums which continue to rise each year.

Before ACA, those premiums were going up at an average rate of 19% per year.

ACA has slowed it down, temporarily, but insurance companies are looking for the government to over ride the regulations, hence, they want congress to repeal Obamacare so they can once again have free reign on who they insure and how much they can charge.

Jim


#10

There are so many questions that remain unanswered. Yes, the first one being how are we going to pay for it?

Our system allows for exclusivity for those that can afford. Many Americans are fortunate that their employers cover a large percentage of the cost. However, this has not been a proactive method for controlling cost. It does not make the patient aware of the cost involved with keeping them well. A major problem is that we are more unhealthy now than in any previous time in recent history. Needless to mention, that just adds to the cost of healthcare.

Because of the strain of the ever rapidly cost increase to business, a lot of small businesses will just provide you with a fixed amount towards your insurance. It is than your responsibility to go out and find a plan that conforms to your budget. On the other side, business in the retail industries will not even offer their employees coverage. The dilemma created by these workers is; who covers their cost when they are sick?

You also put the medical profession in a moral dilemma. Physicians are seeing a greater number of patient arrive needing medical attention , yet have no coverage. These are your citizens that have a job and are responsible. Yet, they encounter great challenges.

We need government to control cost, but we should not put them in the position of administering care. But having government simply pay our bills will leave us in a greater dilemma. Employers already are challenged by the burden of expense and we simply want to pass that challenge to government? Worse, somehow we want to believe that they are just going to make things more efficient? Well all know their track record!

Wellness needs to be incorporated and you need to be aware if you are saving or creating expenses towards maintaining your health. Government is not the answer, but they must play a roll in the solution.


#11

What makes you think this is true. There is nothing that the government has ever been able to do more cheaply than the private sector. So what makes you think health insurance is going to be less expensive when the government provides it?


#12

What an absurd and ignorant thing to say. Americans are opposed to single payer because the 147 million working people in America cannot afford to pay for medical care for the 330 million that reside here. How does the fact that insurance companies making a 2%profit cause Americans to love the insurance industry as opposed to hating something “non capitalist?”


#13

One only need to look at the ineptitude of the government’s running of the VA to get a good idea of how things would turn out.


#14

When health care is"free" the government keeps treatments “affordable” the more expensive treatments are not “available”.


#15

When private health companies ran the show in Australia my insurance was $2500 a year…when medicare (universal cover) was introduced it had dropped to $350 the following year…I kept my own doctor…the reason why is because in Australia there is a medicare levy that all taxpayers above a stipulated yearly salary pay into…I think the levy is 1.5%…haven’t lived there for many years but I think that is still the percent…Australia also has private health cover which people can join…they receive a tax bonus each year if they do join a private insurer to help offset the cost of their medicare levy…the reason a universal healthcare system was introduced in the first place was because the cost was becoming so high that people could not afford it…much like here…unlike here the majority of Australians welcomed it…they also don’t have to sell their home or go into debt if they get a serious illness…my brother-in-law had a one hundred thousand dollar debt when his wife died from cancer a few years ago…they were both retired…had private cover as well as medicare but of course you have to buy extra cover for different illnesses…which they could not afford on top of the $350 they were paying each month…a friend of mine was working a low paid job…he couldn’t afford health care and he didn’t qualify for medicaid…he had terrible pain in his knee for months…he was eventually fired for taking time off because of the pain…he could then go on medicaid and had a MRI which showed he had a fractured bone in his knee…one of our daughters husband had healthcare through his work…he could not afford to cover his wife (daughter) and his four children because of the expense…if they or their kids got sick they would call my wife who is a nurse because they couldn’t afford a doctors bill…and that’s just a couple of the cases I know of where people have gone without because they could not afford the cost…every industrialized country in the world…and even some we might think of as third world have have universal healthcare…as for everyone wanting to come here for treatment check out how many Americans go to Israel for specialized treatment…and Israel has universal healthcare…I doubt you would find many countries… if any… who have gone from universal back to private insurance cover…and of course the Iraq constitution which was drafted by the Bush administration and ratified by the Iraqi people included single payer healthcare for life for all Iraqis…so it’s ok for the Republican Party to give it to Iraqi citizens but not to us here in the US


#16

"The main argument in favor of a single payer is that such a system is the only way we can realistically afford to end the dangerous, embarrassing, and worsening situation wherein about 45 million people in this country lack health insurance and millions more are seriously uninsured. In addition there are a number of practical reasons for having a single payer; these are summarized below.

Publicly financed but privately run health care for all would cost employers far less in taxes than their costs for insurance. With universal coverage, employers would no longer have to pay for medical care as part of the compensation package offered to workers. And with health care outlays expected to increase between 14 percent and 18 percent between now and 2010, employers can expect no relief from the already unsustainable situation they are facing at present. A survey of senior-level executive in Detroit found that 75 percent consider employee health insurance “unaffordable,” while the remaining 25 percent consider it “very unaffordable.”

And more:

citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=577

Medicare is NOT welfare. People who have never worked and paid into the Social Security system are not eligible for Medicate except under special and rare conditions. People who qualify for Medicare have PAID for YEARS into a fund that guarantees them a monthly amount once they retire or become disabled.

Those who have NEVER worked can qualify for welfare - and Obamacare - but those who have never worked cannot qualify for Medicare.


#17

One thing you need to learn is that a claim is not proof. We know that we cannot afford medicare as it stands. Just part B alone costs the taxpayer over $200 billion per year. That is $200 billion we don’t have, so we are making our grandchildren pay for today’s retirees. Now, if we expand medicare to everyone, how are we going to pay for it when we cannot even pay for what we have?

Publicly financed but privately run health care for all would cost employers far less in taxes than their costs for insurance. With universal coverage, employers would no longer have to pay for medical care as part of the compensation package offered to workers. And with health care outlays expected to increase between 14 percent and 18 percent between now and 2010, employers can expect no relief from the already unsustainable situation they are facing at present. A survey of senior-level executive in Detroit found that 75 percent consider employee health insurance “unaffordable,” while the remaining 25 percent consider it “very unaffordable.”

And more:

citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=577

Once again, no information on how this is going to be paid for. This is particularly important when we realize we aren’t paying for what we have now.

Medicare is NOT welfare. People who have never worked and paid into the Social Security system are not eligible for Medicate except under special and rare conditions. People who qualify for Medicare have PAID for YEARS into a fund that guarantees them a monthly amount once they retire or become disabled.

Social Security and medicare are welfare. You have no vested right to either. The government can take either away without legal consequence. You cannot do that with a vested pension. The medicare payroll tax only covers most of part A and none of parts B and D.


#18

stinkcat_

Social Security and medicare are welfare.

No they are not welfare, for the beneficiaries paid into it all of their lives.

If the government kept their hands off SS funds, there wouldn’t be such a huge deficit in the budget for the largest debt is to SS and Medicare, which the government borrowed from.

You have no vested right to either.

Yes we do.

The government can take either away without legal consequence.

Not if they want to stay in office. We can and will not elect any politician who calls for ending SS and Medicare and any member of congress who would try to end it, will end his political career.

Jim


#19

:thumbsup: Absolutely right! :thumbsup: Great post!


#20

Here is a liberal economist explaining why it is a welfare program. Note, it is not a program where your own contributions pay for your own benefits. It is a redistributive program where the government takes from less favored classes of people and gives to more favored classes of people.

We don’t call Social Security “welfare” because it’s a pejorative term and politicians don’t want to offend. So they classify Social Security as something else, when it isn’t. Here’s how I define a welfare program: first, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it’s pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people’s own savings pay their later benefits; and second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions, and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.

newsweek.com/social-security-middle-class-welfare-66119


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.